I met last week with about 25 students from Cornell University who took part in the school's annual Summer in Washington program. Part of the work is to meet in a class setting every week to discuss the impact of the Internet on politics, business and the arts. Many work as interns at federal agencies.
We discussed transparency and federal agencies' use of the Internet, including their websites. The assignment that night was to create a congressional website that would encourage the public to participate more in policy making. The ideas were creative, and the discussion about how technology was influencing government a good one. I was struck by how well informed the students were, how well they articulated their ideas, and how innovative and workable their approaches were.
This was the problem: When I asked how many of them would consider working for the federal government after they graduated, even for a little while, no one raised their hand. They explained they wouldn't work for government because it reacted too slowly and didn't seem to want to pursue new ideas. One student said he saw a manager who had been in government for years roll her eyes after another young intern offered an idea. That doesn't inspire people.
This underscores findings published in the Net Generation report, which the federal CIO Council issued in June under leadership from Defense Department Deputy Chief Information Officer Dave Wennergren. If government is going to attract younger workers, according to the report, it's going to have to become less bureaucratic -- including willing to help shape young workers' new ideas -- or it's going to find itself with many vacant positions. That can only further hurt government performance.
I found this meeting particularly deflating. These students were bright, had lots of energy and good ideas. They were, in one word, impressive. They are exactly the kind of talent agencies need now. But government lost every one of them this summer.
COMMENTS
I'm young and I want to work for the government, but with every job posting I apply for nobody calls me. So far my experience is that the application process is convoluted and not always relevant to the job description. They are often very hard to fill out, time consuming, and requiring lots of additional documentation. I can just picture some HR person at the other end searching my CV for "key" words, which I've probably included alternatives to. It's frustrating.
Christina 09/23/11 11:37 am ET
I believe Tom Peters said it best when he said that people promote people most like themselves. As an "old-timer" I have seen this pattern over the years. Removing managers is very difficult because by doing this you are admitting you made a mistake in promoting this individual. We all know "senior" management is infallible.
Jimmac 07/20/10 01:17 pm ET
Amen, Allan. Two of the biggest issues are hiring -- gov't takes FAR too long -- and telework -- how many years will agencies miss their target percentages? I'm not a gov't employee, but everything I hear says the biggest roadblock is old school management that won't change.
Why should the best and the brightest cool their heels waiting for a job offer that doesn't offer flexibility? They won't, and those that somehow do end up frustrated like the previous poster.
Let's keep shining a light and maybe action will happen.
Chris Parente 07/20/10 11:12 am ET
Why is this a surprise? I'm a boomer and my management also rolls its eyes at any ideas they didn't come up with first. Management, not employees, is the problem in the federal government, and nobody wants to address the problem.
LongTime Fed 07/20/10 10:07 am ET
"It's all about the Benjamins."
In the "real world" businesses are willing to take risks (i.e. invest capital) to gain greater profits. In government, there is almost never a way to gain "extraordinary" funding for innovation. Status quo is what is budgeted for, and status quo is what you get...with the semi-regular "technology refresh" injected by your higher command. Anything requiring large sums of money is purchased on a POM cycle; anything requiring small sums is funded out of end-of-year "fallout" money. Anything in between is practically impossible.
Small example: I am currently trying to get a simple "innovation" implemented in our Brigade-level HQ: a Project Server to allow all the planners and project managers centralized management and web-based access to live Projects. It's unlikely ever to make it off the drawing board, because there's simply not enough dollars to go around.
Large example: Army Network Enterprise Centers are at 60% manning because there's not enough dollars to go around...and it's certainly harder to innovate when you don't have enough people to do your existing mission effectively.
People would jump through the bureaucratic hoops to get things done; but creating something that generates a UFR (UnFunded Request) to achieve completion means investing time in an effort that may never see the light of day.
Bottom line: Scarce funding has a "chilling effect" on innovation; it's not the bureaucracy, it's the budget.
TRCIII 07/20/10 09:34 am ET
This doesn't surprise me, when I was hired by the gov't at 23, I'm 28 now, I was consistently ignored by my superiors because I was "too young" to understand. According to them I'm just a baby so I need to just deal with the way things are done because that's how things have always been done. Also, old school managers consistently deny the benefits of flexibility when it comes to doing some jobs and this keeps younger individuals from wanting gov't jobs. I know this has been pointed out but I don't know how many times it has to be said. If you have a manager that is incompetent, move them to another position, they are just bringing the group down. Don't leave them in the position until they retire in 3-5 years just because it is easier, by leaving them in the position they are teaching others that their attitude is the right way and it will just keep the cycle going.
Whatever 07/20/10 08:53 am ET